As Artificial Intelligence continues to transform the business landscape, the article explains that staying ahead of legal developments has become critical, particularly as global regulation evolves in divergent ways that reflect geopolitical competition and concerns about overregulation stifling innovation. It notes that regulators are responding to the unique way Artificial Intelligence systems are trained, operate, and are commercialised, which is prompting new legislation, guidance and case law across dedicated Artificial Intelligence rules, intellectual property, data privacy, litigation and competition law. This patchwork of emerging obligations and risks means organisations need to track developments across multiple regimes and legal disciplines rather than treating Artificial Intelligence as a siloed issue.
On Artificial Intelligence specific regulation, the article contrasts the United States’ light touch, pro innovation stance at federal level with the European Union’s comprehensive Artificial Intelligence Act and the United Kingdom’s more middle ground, sector specific model. It highlights that in the European Union, the Artificial Intelligence Act has been in force since August 2024 with staged implementation over two plus years, but that some high risk Artificial Intelligence rules which were due to apply from this summer are being slightly delayed and linked to the availability of compliance tools and standards. Proposed changes include expanding exemptions and sandboxes for SMEs and strengthening the Artificial Intelligence Office’s oversight of General Purpose Artificial Intelligence models, while in the United Kingdom an Artificial Intelligence Bill is being discussed that is expected to focus on Artificial Intelligence safety and possibly intellectual property without copying the European Union framework.
The article describes 2025 as another busy year for Artificial Intelligence and intellectual property, with copyright set to dominate in 2026, particularly around training data and Artificial Intelligence generated outputs. It reports that the United Kingdom government is due to publish two Artificial Intelligence and copyright focused reports by 18 March 2026 under the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025, and that the outcome of its consultation on copyright and Artificial Intelligence will address how to balance rights of Artificial Intelligence developers and rights holders for training purposes and how to treat United Kingdom copyright protection for Artificial Intelligence generated content, including models trained abroad. Litigation is expected to intensify, with the United Kingdom Court of Appeal due to hear Getty’s appeal on secondary copyright infringement against generative Artificial Intelligence provider Stability Artificial Intelligence, and the European Commission and courts in Germany and France progressing text and data mining and Artificial Intelligence related copyright questions.
In data privacy, the article says regulators are trying to balance innovation with protection, pointing to provisions in the United Kingdom’s Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 that will relax some data protection rules for Artificial Intelligence, likely from January, particularly around automated decision making while maintaining guardrails for the riskiest scenarios. It notes that the United Kingdom Information Commissioner’s Office plans updated automated decision making guidance this winter and a new Artificial Intelligence code of practice, is working with other United Kingdom regulators via the Digital Regulation Cooperation Forum, and that the European Data Protection Board is drafting guidance on the interaction between the European Union General Data Protection Regulation and the European Union Artificial Intelligence Act. At the same time, United Kingdom and European Union authorities are increasing enforcement against both developers and corporate deployers where Artificial Intelligence tools or models create real privacy risks, which the article says may mean further fines, potentially of higher value, in 2026.
On litigation more broadly, the article emphasises that the opacity of Artificial Intelligence models, the risk of inaccurate “hallucinations” and rapid at scale error replication create fertile ground for substantial claims against developers and users. It flags that regulators are scrutinising “Artificial Intelligence washing”, citing the United States Federal Trade Commission’s warning about misleading claims and the United Kingdom Financial Conduct Authority’s focus on safe and responsible use of Artificial Intelligence in financial markets, and explains that adverse findings could trigger follow on civil claims. Fundamental liability questions remain unresolved, such as whether responsibility for Artificial Intelligence driven errors should sit with developers, deployers or the model itself and how to prove the cause of a hallucination, which courts will need to address as Artificial Intelligence related cases arrive.
In competition law, the article notes that authorities are closely watching Artificial Intelligence markets for both innovation benefits and risks of entrenched power, using merger control and antitrust tools to review partnerships, acquihires and minority investments, as illustrated by the United Kingdom Competition and Markets Authority’s flexible jurisdictional thresholds. It reports that enforcers are moving from theory to practice on algorithmic pricing, referencing the RealPage litigation in the United States and ongoing European Commission investigations, while also probing classic unilateral conduct such as self preferencing and tying, including new inquiries into whether Google and Meta are favouring their own Artificial Intelligence services. Looking ahead, the article says 2026 should bring more clarity on how new digital markets regimes, including the United Kingdom rules and the Digital Markets Act under review until March, may be used to maintain contestability in Artificial Intelligence markets.
Concluding, the article argues that as Artificial Intelligence reshapes industries and stretches existing legal frameworks, organisations must implement practical Artificial Intelligence governance that matches their risk appetite and specific use cases while remaining agile enough to respond to a fast changing regulatory and technological environment. It stresses that successful adaptation will require integrated oversight across regulation, intellectual property, privacy, litigation exposure and competition issues, rather than piecemeal compliance, to manage the growing web of domestic and international Artificial Intelligence obligations.
